Romanian authorities in the mood for "child rights" ?
agnus dei – english + romanian blog, 11 December 2017
The developments in Romania seem ominous. Here is a google translation of the article:
Child's Advocate in Romania? The first country in the world to introduce "child's lawyer" was Norway, REMEMBER Barnevernet !!!
Of course, the idea of "the child's lawyer", despite the name and the empty rhetoric, does not privilege any interest of the child nor grant him any right to take his fate into his hands. The fate of children will not be decided by themselves but also by adults. Only the "child's advocate" will assure and fight that parents are not those who have a word to say about their children, but experts and judges.
At the time of the old rite Communists, the cliché was "the family, the basic cell of society." In the time of new-born Communists, the family must be destroyed precisely because it is "the basic cell of society."
Few will recognize this, as few will assume the ideological label, but do not anticipate or delude ourselves into the patronage we bear.
Only in the last few months, three legislative proposals have been submitted in Romania, not including homosexual marriage, which throws into derision and undermines any idea of parental authority, respectively family. Lawmakers want to introduce compulsory vaccination, compulsory kindergarten and, most recently, the child's lawyer's institution.
The last legislative project is dressed in the rhetoric of "children's rights" and has all the appearances of a solution to improve the fate of the little ones. That's what if we talk very rhetorically, looking out of the plane, nothing concrete in the face. It sounds good.
But if we look at the explanation of reasons, the history and the theory behind this institution, things change.
At the heart of the whole approach is the idea of "children's rights" and it is hard to argue at the emotional level against this concept. The notion, however, is almost devoid of content. What does "child rights" actually mean, in the absence of theory and, above all, traditions of human nature? Do I violate her child's rights if I do not let him spend days with computers and TV? If I do not get an internet phone, do I spoil my freedom? If she does not go to the fast food or the disco? Do I limit her rights if I take him to the church? Etc., etc.
We do not have to make illusions. "Children's Rights" and "Child's Advocate" are not institutions that are opposed to the state, its invasive and discretionary power, but to the parents. From the statement of reasons for the establishment of the "child's lawyer" institution in Romania, this is quite clear, although the authors of the text preferred to camouflage their intentions: "An independent authority to promote the rights of the child, as defined by law, which can be perceived and infringed by private individuals (sn) is imperative. " Who are these "private individuals" is not hard to guess, especially since the entire document does not mention any moment of a possible violation of "children's rights" by the state and its institutions.
Martin Guggenheim is a professor at the New York University School of Law, a juvenile lawyer and a child rights expert. His conclusion on the whole issue, after a decades-long experience, leaves no room for doubt:
"Making them available to lawyers in a variety of legal subjects is contrary to the interests of the child."
In addition to common sense, its arguments are on the American side: more children than they have ever been subject to lawsuits aimed at parental dissolution; more children than ever have been locked up in orphanages without being allowed to live with their parents and even stay in legal ties with them.
Defenders of the idea will unquestionably invoke the countless (?) Cases of parents' abuse against children and the need for them to defend themselves against any kind of violence. According to Guggenheim, however, only a very small, insignificant part of the legal actions directed against parents are motivated by a "limit" behavior of their parents.
And then, what exactly will defend the "child's lawyer"?